JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

OK, I have lots of reasons for wanting to go to inboard shocks, but it's not that simple to do because of the engine being in the way. So I came up with this little design last night that moves them forward. It also allows me to lay them down at a 45* angle. Meaning I don't have to buy shorter shocks.

This tube would mount right above the frame rail.


The end result would look something like this:


Any advice concerning flaws in the design or helping me choose a material for the tube that won't twist like a torsion bar would be greatly appreciated.

Hmmm, maybe cut up an aluminum drivshaft?
Maybe 1.5" solid steel rod?
Thick wall chromoly tubing?

z28bryan

iTrader: (7)

Unfortunately most pics are blocked when I'm at work, so I can't see those. So do you mean shocks that lie horizontally like some racecars?

What would be the purpose or benefit of trying something like that? My question isn't meant to flame nor being sarcastic. I am asking seriously

Grimes

iTrader: (3)

I think I see what you are getting at...but I don't think there is nearly enough room to do what you are considering. I've seen setups similar to what you are suggesting, but they have been for small and light cars with tubular frames that have space for that kind of thing.

Not sure if you have done a spring/shock swap on our cars, but the entire assembly is quite large.

JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

I'm converting to a short spindle front suspension similar to the C5 as well as building a new frame. The car will be so low that the stock shocks will either be right against the hood or else taller.

By going inboard I angle them more (45* limit as the Konii sa are twintube low pressure units and more than that will cause the gas to get into the valving). It will also allow me to easily alter the motion ratios to get more wheel travel should I need it. Plus hey, it's cool looking.

JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

I'm very intimate with these cars suspension, plus I have a ton of room in front of the engine. I've just never seen the rockers extended like this so I'm a little unsure about the design.

I do know that some roller bearings would be a better choice for the rocker ends as it will spread the loads better meaning more strength and longer life.

z28bryan

iTrader: (7)

Now that I can see the pics at home, I was thinking of something different.

So have you done any other things as far as ground clearance? Like moved exhaust pipes around or anything else that sits lower?

JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

I am building the worlds lowest trans am. Check my other thread.

One other thing, I'll be deleting the shock towers which will give me more room.

ae13291

iTrader: (8)

not a bad idea but things arent going to go perfect

94'BLKBRD

iTrader: (76)

Please elaborate....

JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

I don't know what he means either.

fast377

iTrader: (52)

You should probably look into some sort of cam like most of the racecars have instead of that long bar. That is, unless you just don't have the room. But with the cam, it could be made fairly cheap, light, and super strong. Something like this: There is a guy on TGO that did this to his rear suspension. I don't know how well it drove, but once installed, it worked great with him jumping in the back.

JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

This IS a cam design. Did you mean to say rocker instead? That pic you posted is a rocker setup from a Formula One car.

What do you mean, if I don't have the room? Are you an f-body owner? If you are, you'll note that the engine is in between the shocks.

Anyone can make a pushrod setup for the rear of these cars, it's the front that's hard.

fast377

iTrader: (52)

Yea, sorry, I did mean rocker...it's still early. By room, I think I just mis-understood what you wrote. So you plan to place the shocks just like you have in the picture above?

Do you still plan on keeping the air bags with this setup?

JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

With the room I have in front of the engine combined with a 45* mounting angle limitation, I think it has to be that arrangement. I want to keep the shocks on the same plane front to rear so that if I need to, I can mount a smaller and lighter sway bar to the rockers instead of the lower control arms. I thought about crossing the lower part of the shocks, but that would make one "torque tube" longer than the other and the longer it is, the more likely it's going to twist. In theory at least. I've just never seen a setup like this on any vehicle. So I have nothing to go by. I just thought it up myself.

Yes, I have to run the airbags.

JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

I just went outside and mocked it up. It will fit, but a shorter shock, sure would help. Or one that can lay flatter. It looks like the length of the tube from pushrod mount to shock mount is going to be 18". It's a little more than I thought, but it gives the airbags plenty of room in front of the engine. The radiator will be tucked into the nose, BTW. So it won't be seen.

The bottom shock mounts will be just below the level of the sway bar, which is still over 3" higher than the K-member. I should be able to squeeze them in there while having a decent angle on the rocker/cam device. The spring rate will start soft and then get firmer as the suspension compresses which is what most folks recommend.

I could also easily alter the motion ratio by adding extra holes in the ears of the rocker. Ride height fine tuning and corner weighting can be done on the pushrods themselves.

Now if I could set the engine back 18", a conventional rocker setup could be used, but I don't think that is going to happen.

Mojave

iTrader: (4)

Another Jason project..

Good luck.

JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

Don't confuse project with idea. I still don't know if it will work like I want it to. That's why I'm asking for design input. If anyone has a better or simpler solution to making inboard shocks work, please post up.

Suspensions have been around so long, I surely couldn't have thought of something new. I'd really like to see some similar designs actually being used.

z28bryan

iTrader: (7)

I think you try things that most people haven't. Or if people have, they aren't on this message board. The thing I'd be afraid of is how well something entirely new would hold up. I wouldn't want my shocks to snap sideways on me. Unless I was an engineer, I probably wouldn't ever take on something like this.

Did you ever figure out what parts of our car are the lowest points?

I'm assuming if your trying to get as low as possible that your going to have little to no suspension travel. Maybe a cm? You'd want super duper stiff springs in that case and good shocks. Unless you didn't care about that.

hpjunky98

iTrader: (3)

With the amount of travel your trying to get, I would worry about the tube rotating too much where the shock extends and continues to rotate the tube so that the wheels are sucked up way past where you want to go in the wheel wells. Now, I'm sure you've considered this, just wanted to point that out. Also, where are you planning on mounting most of this? Are you going to do a full tube chassis conversion on the front of the car? A lot of the stock points where you "could" mount this design isn't going to hold up to loads the shock towers were designed for. Most of the front was designed to compress in an accident...

Just a few thoughts. Good luck with the design.

JasonWW

iTrader: (2)

I probably am more of an engineer than a lot of folks on this board.

Shock side loading isn't any more an issue than they are now in the stock location. No worries there. As long as both ends can pivot freely, your fine.

Yes, I know what are the lowest points, but it doesn't matter to me as I'm building new floors and frame for it.

I can have as much or as little suspension travel as I want. If I use a shock with 3.6" stroke (like stock) and maintain the stock 1.7 motion ratio, I'll have the stock 6" of travel. If I increase or decrease the motion ratio I will be moving the shocks valving out of it's range slightly, but I can always adjust the rebound to compensate some. So unless I switched shocks, I would keep the suspension travel between 5 and 7 inches. This is the front I'm talking about. In the rear I'll have 7"-8" of travel.

Make sense?